B&I Lions v Wallabies, Test 2 Match Thread, Sat June 29, 1105am

Teferi

Hibbard is awful around the park. He's been a very lazy boy particularly in defence.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Teferi wrote: »

Hibbard is awful around the park. He's been a very lazy boy particularly in defence.

See run up to Aussie try for examples, really disappointing considering he was fresh

bilston

.ak wrote: »

I suppose it comes down to this. What set piece is more important? Scrums for me.

You usually have fewer scrums, however muck up a scrum and you may give away 3 points, muck up a lineout and you can at least react to the situation so yes I agree scrums are more important, plus if the line-out is a disaster you can take the safety option of going to the front. You also have better attacking opportunities off a scrum.

Yeah I've convinced myself! I'm coming round to the idea of Hibbard starting.

Then again, my big bug bear at the moment is a lack of carriers up front so maybe I would go back to Youngs...hmmmmm

irishbucsfan

How much has Youngs carried in the two tests?

SlickRic

irishbucsfan wrote: »

How much has Youngs carried in the two tests?

plenty in the 1st, not so much in the 2nd.

i would ignore most of our carry stats from the 2nd Test, since we couldn't string more than 3 phases together, and spent the last 20 minutes kicking the ball away.

stephen_n

SlickRic wrote: »

plenty in the 1st, not so much in the 2nd.

i would ignore most of our carry stats from the 2nd Test, since we couldn't string more than 3 phases together, and spent the last 20 minutes kicking the ball away.

Hard to build phases off no platform, no scrum, no lineout = no momentum, fix the first problems and the phases will come. Hibbard's impact in the scrum may be over rated as it came after Kane Douglas left game, which weakened the Australian scrum.

SlickRic

stephen_n wrote: »

Hard to build phases off no platform, no scrum, no lineout = no momentum, fix the first problems and the phases will come.

indeed.

and that's why I've said in the other thread that you fix the platform, the Lions win the series.

it's in the Lions' hand.

Judgement Day

Assuming that quite a few of those likely to be picked for the 3rd Test will be playing for the last time in a Lions shirt, I wonder will they throw caution to the wind - BOD will certainly want to go with a bang. I expect the Aussies to get a serious spanking. For the benefit of my fans in the betting thread I'm on B+I Lions to win at 10/11.

rrpc

bilston wrote: »

Well to be fair after the first 25 mins the Lions started winning penalties and getting a shove at scrum time so there was some logic in keeping him on. Still let's hope Corbs is ok for Saturday, sounds like he will be.

He basically was cheating though and eventually got pinged for it. Stepping out and driving in and popping the hooker up.

.ak

rrpc wrote: »

He basically was cheating though and eventually got pinged for it. Stepping out and driving in and popping the hooker up.

I can't believe he wasn't pinged for it earlier. We all spotted it in the pub even before the replays. He was just basically standing up. If that's scrummaging then I'm Bob Marley.

Swiwi.

Judgement Day wrote: »

Assuming that quite a few of those likely to be picked for the 3rd Test will be playing for the last time in a Lions shirt, I wonder will they throw caution to the wind - BOD will certainly want to go with a bang. I expect the Aussies to get a serious spanking. For the benefit of my fans in the betting thread I'm on B+I Lions to win at 10/11.

What odds are you offering, because I'll take you up on it. I'm not quite sure what your confidence is built on - it takes a lot of 3-pointers to spank an opposition, because sadly that's all the Lions looked capable of in the weekend.

rrpc

.ak wrote: »

I can't believe he wasn't pinged for it earlier. We all spotted it in the pub even before the replays. He was just basically standing up. If that's scrummaging then I'm Bob Marley.

The first time, Joubert didn't spot it, the second time he was on the other side, the third time he was on that side watching for it and blew it up.

Scrums really are a mess. The sooner the new laws get up and running the better. They shouldn't be a source of scores, but that's what they've become and making a joke of the game.

Swiwi.

rrpc wrote: »

The first time, Joubert didn't spot it, the second time he was on the other side, the third time he was on that side watching for it and blew it up.

Scrums really are a mess. The sooner the new laws get up and running the better. They shouldn't be a source of scores, but that's what they've become and making a joke of the game.

+1 x a trillion.

The scrum has become the modus operandi for teams both side of the equator to milk penalities.

I want a scrum contest, where the technically better side can assert their dominance to physically & pyschologically wear down the opposition, leading to gaps around the field that can be exploited etc...rather than the dark arts of causing collapses, resets etc to earn a shot at goal for Halfpenny or Lealiifano.

thomond2006

Are the refs being too trigger happy at scrums or are props just cheating all the time?

P.Walnuts

Is there anything to be done with scrums dominating (ruining) games?

How about....

Any penalty won from a scrum outside the 22 cannot be kicked at goal, only kicked to touch..

Who wants to shoot that one down first?

.ak

Ah in fairness, I'm not a fan of the scrums, but there's an element of drama about them when they work that adds to the game. Sometimes they ruin a game, yes, but sometimes they can absolutely make it.

The Leinster Northampton HEC final is a great example of a scrum dominated game, where the balance of power shifted with the team that won the scrum. Yet it didn't overshadow all the other great parts of the game.

The only reason we're dwelling on them so much now is because the past two games have been turgid affairs with nothing else to discuss really.

Swiwi.

.ak wrote: »

Ah in fairness, I'm not a fan of the scrums, but there's an element of drama about them when they work that adds to the game. Sometimes they ruin a game, yes, but sometimes they can absolutely make it.

The Leinster Northampton HEC final is a great example of a scrum dominated game, where the balance of power shifted with the team that won the scrum. Yet it didn't overshadow all the other great parts of the game.

The only reason we're dwelling on them so much now is because the past two games have been turgid affairs with nothing else to discuss really.

Turgid is really the word of the week. It's popping up everywhere. Sadly, with good reason

Buer

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Is there anything to be done with scrums dominating (ruining) games?

How about....

Any penalty won from a scrum outside the 22 cannot be kicked at goal, only kicked to touch..

Who wants to shoot that one down first?

Wouldn't go that far but there's a very strong case for downgrading several offences to free kick status. Binding, for example, has always been a bug bear of mine. If a loosehead wants to be very awkward, he can bind high with his arm at an angle that impinges on the tightheads ability to get a good grip. As it stands, many tightheads end up binding on the arm/armpit.

The scrum is, by definition, a way of restarting the game. I love a good scrum battle but it should never have been allowed end up being such an influential part of the game whereby a match can be won and lost on the basis of several engagements.

irishbucsfan

rrpc wrote: »

He basically was cheating though and eventually got pinged for it. Stepping out and driving in and popping the hooker up.

How does a loosehead pop a hooker up?

He wasn't stepping out as such. They were driving left and he was constantly starting his drive after them, so even driving straight he was out of alignment and had to drive in. There's nothing a loosehead can do in that situation apart from drive in.

It was his fault they were able to have their TH drive at the hooker somewhat, because he was quite naive, but it was also Joubert's fault for letting them constantly drive well before the ball ever went in. So that by the time the ball was actually in, the TH was driving in on Youngs (not exactly a great scrummager) and Moore and the LH were both attacking Jones, who gave a bit of a mammoth performance to put up with it without Buckleying. He really is a class scrummager thinking about it.

I think you could definitely say MV was illegal, but I think it's actually fairer to say it was the Aussies causing him to be illegal. And there is nothing inherently illegal in driving left and moving the scrum away from the LH, but the way they did it (driving well before the ball was in) WAS illegal. Joubert allowed the situation to develop really, although he had a good game I thought.

Anyway I'm a flanker so my knowledge of scrummaging comes from years of standing at the back of the scrum machine listening to much bigger men than me discuss it, rather than actually doing any of it myself, apart from one time when I went in as a loosehead in unconstested scrums, which means I can say I've never lost a scrum with an almost straight face.

danthefan

Buer wrote: »

Wouldn't go that far but there's a very strong case for downgrading several offences to free kick status. Binding, for example, has always been a bug bear of mine. If a loosehead wants to be very awkward, he can bind high with his arm at an angle that impinges on the tightheads ability to get a good grip. As it stands, many tightheads end up binding on the arm/armpit.

The scrum is, by definition, a way of restarting the game. I love a good scrum battle but it should never have been allowed end up being such an influential part of the game whereby a match can be won and lost on the basis of several engagements.

Problem with that is, teams will often go for another scrum.

rrpc

.ak wrote: »

Ah in fairness, I'm not a fan of the scrums, but there's an element of drama about them when they work that adds to the game. Sometimes they ruin a game, yes, but sometimes they can absolutely make it.

The Leinster Northampton HEC final is a great example of a scrum dominated game, where the balance of power shifted with the team that won the scrum. Yet it didn't overshadow all the other great parts of the game.

The only reason we're dwelling on them so much now is because the past two games have been turgid affairs with nothing else to discuss really.

Yep, there were other great parts of the game.

The problem is the amount of cheating in scrums, it's just getting worse:
Driving in
Crooked put-ins - I don't know when I last saw a straight one.
Getting the push on before the ball is in - Never seen that pinged either.
Opposition SH offside - all the time
Flankers unbinding - all the time
Front rows popping up - very rarely penalised, refs seem to just hope the ball comes out.
Hands on the deck
etc. etc.

Buer

rrpc wrote: »

Front rows popping up - very rarely penalised, refs seem to just hope the ball comes out.

Not a penalty offence; it's one of the most incorrectly called penalties around. Should be a reset.

DDC1990

Buer wrote: »

Not a penalty offence; it's one of the most incorrectly called penalties around. Should be a reset.

Are you sure. I'm sure deliberately standing up under pressure so you don't get driven further back is a penalty.

Buer

DDC1990 wrote: »

Are you sure. I'm sure deliberately standing up under pressure so you don't get driven further back is a penalty.

20.3 (i) Player forced upwards. If a player in a scrum is lifted in the air, or is forced upwards out of the scrum, the referee must blow the whistle immediately so that players stop pushing.

The referee can penalise the player for not driving straight but there's no penalty against being upright in the scrum. Deliberately forcing an opposition player up out of the scrum is actually a penalty against the player that drives the man up and out. I've never seen it called.

toomevara

Buer wrote: »

20.3 (i) Player forced upwards. If a player in a scrum is lifted in the air, or is forced upwards out of the scrum, the referee must blow the whistle immediately so that players stop pushing.

The referee can penalise the player for not driving straight but there's no penalty against being upright in the scrum. Deliberately forcing an opposition player up out of the scrum is actually a penalty against the player that drives the man up and out. I've never seen it called.

See, I just don't get this (never have), penalises the dominant, more powerful scrum and also gives a weak scrummager an 'out'....counter intuitive, but then its just another way of de-fanging the scrum I guess.

Swiwi.

.ak wrote: »

"14 Red, I can confirm that 14 Red did grab that player in an indecent manner"

The Aussie

Le vieux renard wrote: »

"14 Red, I can confirm that 14 Red did grab that player in an indecent manner"

And almost ended his Tour in the process, Kudos....

Lelantos

The Aussie wrote: »

And almost ended his Tour in the process, Kudos....

Almost ended his hopes of fatherhood in the process

mystic86

Just re-watched the 2nd test, first time seeing it since watching it live in the pub..

The Lions deserved to lose. I'm really disappointed with the Lions, and I blame Gatland for the most of it.

The Lions did nothing creatively the whole game, nothing! Never looked like scoring a try. I'd recommend everyone re-watch the last 17 minutes of the game.... The Lions didn't score in that time, and the Australian play was very, very good (at least compared to the rest of the game). It was the only part of the game where either team played lovely positive attacking rugby, but it was all Australia. And in such a tight game where there was nothing in it up to that point, their play in the closing quarter alone means they deserved to win IMO. I saw a stat at the 77th minute which said that in the last 10 minutes of play (67th-77th minutes), Australia had 70% of the possession. I didn't see a territory stat for the same period, but I'm sure it must be similar.

Youngs at 9 was crap!! Our scrum was really struggling and we needed to get the ball in and out ASAP, instead he didn't bother putting the ball in at all. I hope he isn't in the squad at all next week, surely he can't be.

As for Sexton, he hasn't been nearly as big an influence on the series as I thought he would be before it started. I assume the way he is playing must be directly related to Gatland's instructions. If I see Sexton do one more Garryowen I'm going to explode - ffs Gatland will you change the goddamn tactics!! You'd swear our backline were such dominant aerial threats compared to the Australians' backline when you look at how much Sexton is kicking it, but that isn't true, they catch just as well as us and we NEED to stop this tactic!
Sexton has made a couple of mistakes too in the second test and hasn't looked as sharp as normal and has generally been a bit quite, but I have faith in him and again, I blame Gatland and the tactics. I really wish there was a coup and Sexton, Drico et al decide they are playing the game the way they know how to do best.

In the warm up games we did a LOT of pre-planned backline moves that worked very well, but they were almost all from set pieces which we set ourselves up for these from. However, relying on these moves to get our tries kind of assumes we will be dominant in set-pieces, and this isn't the case at all!
Look at the lineouts, Australia were very good in the lineout, albeit we lost O'Connell which is a big loss, both in the lineout and as a forwards leader. They stole lineouts and were generally very disruptive. In the very last lineout of the game, in their own 22 (very bad mistake by James O'Connor to kick it out on the full like that!), winning by 1 point, Australia wonderfully stole a lineout and Gill did a wonder-feat in one-handedly gaining possession for Australia, absolutely crucial play for Australia. (AW Jones gave away a stupid penalty right after this).

As for the scrum, OK it was a lottery at times, and Vunipola did recover some-what as the scrum wore on, but he (at least) started very bad and directly gave away 6 points near the start of the game. He simply can't scrum straight, and only seemed to do well when he was going in at an angle, which of course is illegal.
I hope to god Corbisiero is fit for this Saturday.

The Australians were far too dominant at the restarts, would loads of their own restarts in the 1st half, we need to do a lot better here.

Davies needs to go. He just isn't good enough. What a god-awful grubber kick attempt btw. Oh and nice work on covering AAC for that try (not!).

Of course a definite huge positive was our defensive, which was fantastic!
However we need both sides of the coin and Gatland has certainly brought a dour, negative, overly defensive (minded), negatively structured and instructed game plan to this Lions Tour.

I'm not a happy man. Even if we win on Saturday and win the series, but win playing like we did last Saturday, I will be happy but not ecstatic. I want us to open up and show the world what these players can do.

Hippo

danthefan wrote: »

Problem with that is, teams will often go for another scrum.

Then perhaps remove that option.